Deliberate Concealment Of Absence Of Uterus Constitutes Fraud Under Section 12 (1)(C) Of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment upholding the annulment of a marriage on grounds of matrimonial fraud, ruling that deliberate concealment of the absence of a uterus constitutes fraud under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In a judgment delivered on August 27, 2025, the Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal, affirming the Family Court’s decision declaring the marriage null and void.

The court noted that the wife had challenged the judgment dated November 5, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts (West), Delhi, which had declared the marriage between the parties null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The marriage had been solemnized on April 21, 2016, as an arranged marriage in Delhi.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, writing for the bench, observed that the appellant’s sole challenge was that the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act were not applicable to the present case. The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no concealment of any material fact at the time of marriage, contending that the appellant herself was unaware of her medical condition and therefore, in the absence of such knowledge, the question of deliberate concealment did not arise.

The court extensively examined the evidence led by both parties and noted that it was only on November 16, 2017, after obtaining medical reports from Origyn Fertility & IVF Centre, B.M. Gupta Hospital, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, that the petitioner husband came to know that the respondent wife did not have a uterus and her left kidney, and thus could never conceive. The court found that “the respondent, despite being aware, deliberately and intentionally concealed the fact that she did not have a uterus.”

The bench emphasized that the expression “fraud” in Section 12(1)(c) must be understood in the matrimonial context, distinct from its meaning under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court clarified that “not every misrepresentation or concealment of a fact shall amount to ‘fraud’ as envisaged under Section 12(1)(c) for annulment of a marriage. The fraud must be material as to the nature of the ceremony or to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent.”

It further observed that procreation forms a genuine expectation of a spouse, being an integral aspect of marital life alongside companionship and emotional support. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, noting: “Marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse in another, which includes obligations such as companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relations and the exclusive enjoyment of them, the ability to have children and raise them, services in the home, support, affection, love, and companionship.”

The court found that the appellant’s testimony was riddled with material contradictions regarding her medical condition and her knowledge of it. The judgment noted: “On the one hand, she sought to portray herself as capable of conceiving, even alleging pregnancy and miscarriage, whereas, in her cross-examination, she categorically admitted that she never had a uterus. This fundamental inconsistency, coupled with her belated and unsubstantiated versions about alleged surgical removal and stitch marks, destroys her credibility.”

The court also examined whether, after the discovery of fraud, the respondent had continued to live with the appellant as husband and wife, which would bar the petition under Section 12(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The court concluded that the mere fact that the parties resided under the same roof after the discovery of fraud cannot be treated as a resumption of marital cohabitation, as “cohabitation necessarily implies a conscious and mutual intention of both spouses to restore normalcy in their marital relationship, which was evidently absent in the present case.”

The court found it difficult to accept that a 24-year-old woman residing in a metropolitan city like Delhi could have remained unaware of the complete absence of menstruation. The judgment observed: “It is settled medical knowledge that menstruation is the shedding of the uterine lining (endometrium), and without a place for the endometrium to develop and thereafter shed, the biological phenomenon of menstruation cannot occur.”

In conclusion, Justice Shankar held that the learned District Judge had rightly and judiciously concluded that the marriage deserved to be declared a nullity under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, stating: “Such deliberate concealment of a condition that strikes at the very root of matrimonial life constitutes the core ground for our affirmation of the findings of the learned District Judge.”

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the inability to conceive, arising from the absence of a uterus, strikes at the heart of marital obligations and expectations and cannot be treated as immaterial.

Appearances:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate – for the appellant.

Mr. Adarsh Varma and Ms. Swati Kumar, Advocates – for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]